all sincere witnesses?

http://carm.org/christian-doctrine

The problem with the Jehovah Witnesses is that they do not understand the scriptures.

There is only One God (Capital G) Not Two

God is called Mighty God (Capital G) in Isaiah 10:20-21 & Jeremiah 32:18

Just as Jesus is called Mighty God (Capital G) in Isaiah 9:6

There is only One God (Capital G) Not Two. Isaiah 43:10

Jesus is God

Jesus is the same God that was in Isaiah 10:20-21 & Jeremiah 32:18

Further more people and angels are falsely called gods (small g) in the bible but they are not true gods they are false gods.

The Jehovah Witnesses mostly bring up on how satan was called god however satan being called god does not mean that he was a god but rather it means he is ruler.

How many Gods are there ?

Just One all other so called gods are false.

Jesus is KING of KINGS and LORD of LORDS. see Revelation 19:16

Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords. see Revelation 17:14

The thing Jehovah Witnesses also do not understand is that Jesus has Two Natures.

Jesus is Both God and Man.

God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself. see 2 Corinthians 5:19

As a Man Jesus can die. It was the human part of Jesus that died on the cross, not the divine. http://carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/go...

http://carm.org/jesus-two-natures

GOD

He is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33).

He was called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8)

He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1)

He is prayed to (Acts 7:59).

He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15).

He knows all things (John 21:17).

He gives eternal life (John 10:28).

All the fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9).

MAN

He worshiped the Father (John 17).

He was called man (Mark 15:39; John 19:5).

He was called Son of Man (John 9:35-37)

He prayed to the Father (John 17).

He was tempted (Matt. 4:1).

He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52).

He died (Rom. 5:8).

He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39).

I sure think it is fascinating that all the different translations point to the same God! Since the dead sea scrolls confirmed the Bible's consistent roots, we can all rest assured that our copy is essentially the same as the original scrolls. It is cool that we are reading the same stuff that the Biblical people heard in the synagogues. Considering that Hebrew doesn't translate perfectly into English, I wouldn't get too woried about the varying wording. As for when these new translations will be on the shelves, I've got no clue (and zero Google results). Oh, and by the way, I thought that Elohim was "strong creator"... oh well, I stand corrected.

Is it possible that the Hebrew word when translated meant "Mighty" and in other verses "Almighty"? Because I've seen Almighty used before, only just now when you pointed it out and then I saw Mighty. Either way, I don't know a word in Hebrew so I can't account for anything. But I still won't use that to show equality.

Here's your folly about how you misrepresent scripture. This is from an outside source (Not a Jehovah's Witness) to show how you are wrong about Isaiah 9:6.

http://bibleq.info/answer/108/

"Despite the commonly believed doctrine of the Trinity, the Bible does not teach that Jesus is equal with God. Instead, it consistently refers to him as “Son of God”. Even for those who believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, the verse is difficult to understand because Jesus is not the Father but the Son.

However, the word “God” does not necessarily mean the Almighty Creator. Even humans were sometimes called “gods” (e.g., Psalm 82:6) meaning powerful people, but not equal with the Creator. Jesus is a mighty God without being the Almighty God. And the word “father” does not mean Jesus is equal with his father. “Father” is often used in the Bible to mean a leader. For example, Paul says to the Corinthians “For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” (1 Corinthians 4:15). Jesus is the father of the age to come (which is how the Greek Old Testament translated Isaiah 9:6).

Furthermore, Jesus is not the only one to be called by the names of God. In the Old Testament the angel who speaks for God is frequently addressed as God or speaks as God (e.g., Exodus 13:21; 23:21-22, Judges 2:1, 13:21-22). A person or being perfectly representing God, or standing in the place of God (e.g., Moses in Ex. 4:16, 7:1) can be called by the names and titles of God."

Jehovah never adresses anyone as a Mighty God.

Genesis 17:1(NASB)-

"Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; Walk before Me, and be blameless."

Genesis 28:3(NASB)-

"May God Almighty bless you and make you fruitful and multiply you, that you may become a company of peoples."

Genesis 35:11(NASB)-

"God also said to him, "I am God Almighty; Be fruitful and multiply; A nation and a company of nations shall come from you, And kings shall come forth from you."

So, as you can see Jehovah can never be mighty God since he is Almighty God.

Really?

So let's make the same analogy you just did

In Isa 44:6 Jehovah is called King of Israel

In Prov 1:1 Solomon is called King of Israel

I guess Solomon is Jehovah!

Greetings,

The mistake is not in the NWT nor in the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses. The mistake is that you have not done the proper research but have blindly accepted the fallacious reasoning of Trinitarian theologians.

The problem with your logic is that others are described as "Mighty Gods" in the Bible. In fact, in its initial application Isa.9:6 was originally speaking of of the human king, perhaps Hezekiah, as a prophetic type of the Messiah.

Yes, Jehovah is called "mighty God" at Isa 10:21. However, we have humans at Ezek.32:21 who are also called "mighty Gods" (EL GIBBOWR). (Many Bibles translate this as "mighty chiefs" or "strong and mighty"--NASB, NRSV, KJV, WEB).

So, the very basis for your argument is disproved: "Mighty God" is NOT a title only given to Almighty God.

The Trinitarians' logic is that since Jesus is called "mighty God" at Isa.9:6 and Jehovah is called "mighty God" at Isa 10:21 Jesus must be Almighty God. But, this logic obviously fails because, if the Trinitarian interpretation is correct, this would mean that mighty humans are also God. Obviously, if the original Hebrew text could call these human warriors ‘mighty gods' without meaning that these humans are equal to Jehovah, then Christ could be called the same without meaning he was equal to Almighty God, especially since he was God's direct representative.

Notice what Raymond Brown, a Catholic scholar, said of Isa 9:6: "'God' may have been looked on simply as a royal title and hence applicable to Jesus as the Davidic Messiah"--Jesus, God and Man, p. 24,25

The NET Bible footnote on Isa.9:6: "(mighty God)...Others argue that the title portrays the king as God's representative...Ps 45:6 addresses the Davidic king as "God" because he ruled and fought as God's representative on earth...When the king's enemies oppose him on the battlefield, they are, as it were, fighting against God himself." (See also the BDB Lexicon, page 42).

Applying these titles to the human king did not mean that he was equal to Almighty God, it simply meant the king had a position over others and was God's representative. It meant the same regarding the future Messiah; he would be God's representative not God Himself.

The Catholic NAB, when commenting on Isa. 9:6 says: "Upon his shoulder dominion rests: authority...God-hero: a warrior and a defender of his people, like God himself."

Next, while Jesus Christ is called "mighty God" in the prophesy at Isa 9:6, Trinitarians must ignore the fact that this is a prophecy for the FUTURE. It is not saying the Messiah IS a "mighty God" but that he "WILL BE called Mighty God" in the future, and so it is translated as a future tense in most Bibles. Jesus was not called "mighty god" when Isaiah wrote.

No one could ever say that Jehovah "will be called Mighty God" since he already is as Isa.10:21 states. So Isa.9:6 actually shows that the pre-human Jesus is not Almighty God. The use of the future tense here is fatal to Trinitarianism.

In the future, Christ would have to be elevated to a higher position by his God, the Almighty (Php.2:9-11; Heb.1:9, 13; 2:5,8; 1Pt.3:22; 2Pt 1:17; Mt.28:18; 1Cor. 15:27). This would be impossible if Jesus were Almighty God.

Isaiah also says the Messiah is God's "servant" and would be "anointed" by God (Isa.42:1; 52:13, cf. Ac.3:13-26; Isa.61.1; Lk 4:18; Ac 4:27; 10:38). Jesus could not be Almighty God since he was "anointed" and "sent" by God. You cannot be God's "servant" and also be that God. A person is "anointed" and "sent" by a superior (Jn. 13:16).

The Hebrew word translated "Mighty God" is "El Gibbohr." If Jesus were almighty God, then the Hebrew word would be different. It would be "El Shaddai" as in Gen. 17:1. Only the Father, Jehovah, is ever called "God Almighty" which, of course, is above "Mighty God."

Also, any Trinitarian who uses this Scripture to support their belief shows that they simply do not understand their own belief. But, Jesus is also here called the "eternal Father." If calling him Mighty God makes him the same God as Jehovah then calling him Eternal Father makes him the same FATHER as Jehovah. However, Trinitarians do not believe that Jesus is the Father. Saying that Jesus is the Father is called Sebellianism or Modalism; a heresy to Trinitarians. But, this Scripture explicitly states that Jesus is the "eternal Father." So, we either have two "Fathers" mentioned in the Scriptures or this proves Seballianism: that Jesus IS The Father, thus making them the same person and not three persons in one God. So, Trinitarians (outside of E. Orthodox and older Adventists) using this interpretation are unknowingly contradicting their own belief. So the Trinitarian logic is proved faulty and again dealt a fatal blow.

So, this is another text that simply offers no support to Trinitarianism. Isaiah was not speaking of Almighty God in Isaiah, but he was only speaking of God's representative the Messiah.

Yours,

BAR-ANERGES

The real problem is that God simply does not exist, and the Bible is a fairy tale written by men. One easy way to see this is common sense when looking at the Noah's Ark tale:

http://www.thebroadroad.com/m/articles/view/Noah-s...

Even if he did exist, who would love him knowing him from the Bible:

http://www.thebroadroad.com/m/articles/view/God-is...

Spam, spam, spam, spam. Spam, spam, spam, spam. Spamity spam. Loverly spam.